Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:08, 25 April 2017

User talk:Keith-264/Archive 1

Archives

Index Archive 1

]

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Foster mounting

Just in case you are interested...

I have a rewrite of the article on the Foster mounting nearing completion in my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox which may or may not be of interest. In common with other articles I have worked on from (more or less) scratch like this I am basically writing the text first and will be adding the verifiability/links etc. later - appreciate if you could add any comments you might have, including any possible outright errors you might notice, either to my talk page or the one to my sandbox. Most welcome help of all would be usable references, anything you think I should read etc.

Thanks (and Hi!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello it's been a while. I'e had a shufti and it looks pretty good to me. I altered a blue link and left a note, hope you don't mind. Would you like me too have a look for sources? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As you will notice, I've done some more tweaking myself - including that "monster" wikilink (don't know quite what happened there!) Yes please - any sources you can find would be really welcome, although I already have a few of the obvious ones, including Woodman. The lack of references in the draft of the "new" article is actually by design at this stage - I plan to insert them all in one king hit when the shape of the article is clearer, using the system I used for the synchronisation and Fokker scare articles. In the meantime... Thanks for your interest! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good for you; I got quite excited once I got over mixing up the Foster with the Scarff Ring. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol! my cat's regards to yours! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties

I will review @ Western Front and leave my observations on the talk page. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RT

@Burnley, pls stop phlegmming on my talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

I'm very disappointed by this comment. I'm going to have to ask you to step up the constructive engagement and lay off of the acknowledged retaliation before things end up at WP:ANI or WP:AE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason for your disappointment and notice another possible generic management manoeuvre. Have you offered the same complaint to Burnley and Marek? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

My disappointment is borne from my assessment that you're the primary cause of the nastiness at Talk:RT (TV network) and that when two editors asked you to change your attitude you basically doubled down and indicated that you saw nothing wrong with it. That doesn't lead to anything good. Admin action aside, you're not exactly building consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You have things back to front; I support your amendments to the article and I deplore your comments on the talk page. The Mote and the Beam. Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point completely. From time to time you get into disputes with people over content. So you go to the talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to build a consensus supporting your proposed consensus. It's hard to do that when you use the talk page to make snarky, dismissive comments instead of describing what you want in the article and why. This phenomenon occurs regardless of whether you and I agree or disagree on content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make things worse, I have told you that I retaliated to insults to a limited extent. Are you making the same points to Burnley and Marek?Keith-264 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Why did you retaliate, and how did it advance Misplaced Pages's goals? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

See my explanation on the RT talk page. I have had a look at your talk page and saw that your response to Burnley's bragging was different to what you've dished out to me. The complaints about your editing littering the rest of the page did not make good reading and led me to conclude that I overestimated you. While you remain free to comment on my talk page I will respond no further. I remain available for dialogue on the RT talk page. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Well, you have been warned. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I grant you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

-- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I know what is going on and I am defending myself. I hope that you bear this in mind and make the same comments to Beyond.... rather than being one sided, since that would be fair. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Three separate talk page comments with personal attacks in all three. I see nothing of the sort at the article talk page from BMK toward you. Yours were not any kind of defense, just offense. I note you were warned about similar behavior just a few days ago, different editor, different case. Seems to becoming a habit. Please don't revisit that behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you looked at his edit comments as well? I have taken it to talk, gained dialogue with him but failed to reach consensus due to his obduracy and willingness to resort to insults; I have retaliated. Your intervention is one-sided and unfair; I suggest you look again rather than reiterate a mistaken impression. Notice also that you are overlooking my warnings about his conduct. I doubt I'm the first and sadly won't be the last. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

PS I suggest that you be more cautious about removing messages from your talk page, your motives may be questioned. Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith, I'm not sure where you get the idea that non-administrators have any duty to be even-handed when addressing disputes. No offense, but it seems to be a way to deflect the conversation away from the topic at hand. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sophistry: in a bizarre twist of fate, Winkelvi has just been barred for three months for edit warring. Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)-->

Capture of Assab

Hi, could you specify an e-mail address for me to send the pages about the fall of Assab? Or if there is any other way to send them - they are photos.--Olonia (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Try squeeth@outlook.com regardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Olonia (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Lupinacci, Pier Filippo; Cocchia, Aldo (1961). La Marina italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale: Le operazioni in Africa Orientale (in Italian). Vol. X. Rome: Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare Italiana. pp. 187–197. OCLC 955801310. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)Keith-264 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Saïo

Hello there again Keith. I once mentioned to you that I wanted to raise the Siege of Saïo to GA status. Well, I'm happy to report that it is currently undergoing review. If you'd be able to clear up some of the reviewer's comments over the material you've contributed to the article it would be much appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Delighted to, regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Giuseppe Arimondi

G'day, I want to publicly thank you for your work on that page. Since my effort is mainly a selective translation from the corresponding Italian Misplaced Pages article, your copyedits are more than welcome (my english is not so fluent). I'm trying to push the article at least to B-class, so I really appreciate any suggestions. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't much like reviewing so I try to make up for it with cheeky little copy edits, that add to the article. I thought it was a translation so was able to help with the syntax and a few typos. You're welcome to ask me for a look at your writing. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Northeast

Hello Keith- Regarding your revert of my spelling change: What is your basis for keeping the hyphen in "north-east"? Misplaced Pages articles (Points_of_the_compass#Compass_point_names, Cardinal_direction#Additional_points) and at least one dictionary seem to disagree with you. Eric 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Eric, there's a Wiki on it somewhere, I'll try to find it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

By "Wiki", do you mean you've seen guidance on the English Misplaced Pages promoting hyphenation of the adjectival forms of compass directions? I'd be interested to see that. Eric 13:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes.Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, let me know when you find it, okay? Eric 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You can help if you want.Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There's this but it isn't what I'm looking for.Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignore the above, it's a national variation "Notice that compound compass points are usually joined in American English, for example northwest, while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated, as in north-west." Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was just about to send you that same link, plus this one: Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Compass_points. The hyphen looks quaint and archaic to this Yank, in spite of my familiarity with British English, but it ain't no big deal neither. A note re wikilinks (forgive me if you already know): You can simply put everything in the url beyond "...wiki/" in double brackets to avoid generating what looks like an external link. Eric 16:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Compass_points Thanks for that, I didn't know, I've only just learned the difference between http and https. I prefer the hyphen because I think that the contraction of these two words looks like an abbreviation too far. If you have a page like User:Keith-264/common.js this, with importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js'); you can click a button on the article page and get hyphens where you'd never expect. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, that looks like copy-editing WMD! Eric 21:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264 the edit i did in page Battle of Messines (1917) was adding flagicon image not on no of troops — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay rath (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies babe, I wasn't looking properly. Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

i can also keep on editing the pages again again Vijay rath (talk 10:20 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I have mentioned you Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nuisance_edits here. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Hill 60

Hi Keith,

First of all, let me bow down to your knowledge of the theme, which seems to be much bigger than mine :) With this in mind, I have not reverted your edits on the page Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front). However, I'm curious as to why exactly they were necessary. In (almost?) all other pages, there IS a mention of a German Army and in first view, it seems like there may have been divisions that were mostly recruited from one area (as they were in GB) - but I couldn't find references of a real 'Saxon army'. Also: it seems that the Saxon contingents were at least led by commanders from Baden and Württemberg - which would seem to further disprove the 'Saxon army' bit. Assuming your good faith and superior knowledge, can I ask you to look into these questions and clarify them in the text please? I'm looking forward to learning more about this!

Kind regards, Cuoregr (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your generosity, you aren't so bad yourself ;o).there is a division among editors about the nature of the German army in WWI, which boils down to me wanting the national contingents to be treated like the Canadian and Australian corps, part of an army but having a distinct identity within it. Most of the others want German national contingents to be treated as indistinguishable elements of a German Imperial army. I was rather pleased to see that Sheldon (2017) had added some citable information about the autonomy of the 26th Reserve Division on the Somme in 1916, which tends to support my view. I'm adding more info on the Hill 60 page from Lucas and Schmieschek (2015) which I got in March but haven't finished amending articles with information from it. I'm concentrating on getting the 3rd Ypres pages ready for the centenary so only looked at the 1917 section until today. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, if there's division among editors, it might be more advisable to *mention* the Saxon heritage of the divisions rather than claiming that "it was a myth there was such a thing as one Imperial Army"? I'm feeling that might be a bit like inviting quarrels in, but that might be just me :) Also, if you find the time, I would suggest you could write an article about these 'state armies' within the German army? It sounds very interesting (I really hadn't heard of that so far), and it would give you and other contributors the chance to use that into articles like Hill 60 and many others? No offence meant - just a suggestion! Kind regards from not too far from Hill 60, Cuoregr (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No-one has questioned it until now ;o) and you seem satisfied. Lucas and Schmieschek have an exposition of the status of the royal armies but it isn't enough for an article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I'm not really satisfied, but I'm rather uncomfortable in removing something an expert feels so strongly about. Again, if you say that there is division among editors, at least the part about the 'myth' should be removed IMHO. Regarding the claim of a 'Saxon army' itself, I'm also not convinced (as the commanders are said to be not Saxon etc) - but again, also not convinced enough that it is NOT true to remove it by myself against your will. I'm still eager to learn more about this, but it seems hard to find verifiable information about this online. Still hoping to reach a solution with which we would both be happy though :) Cuoregr (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I can add something from Lucas and Schmieschek about the Saxon Army; by the end of the war, it had 19 divisions. Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Harvard citation

Personally, I prefer sfn over harvnb, but it was easier for me to do everything with harvnb, cause sfn won't work when we have <ref name="something"> in an article. I don't mind if someone would replace harvnb with sfn. -- Bojan  Talk  20:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I didn't realise that you were trying to preserve some of the earlier citations. I'm even more crap with the ref /ref multi cite method than harvnb. I added another comment to your page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know for the script. Perssonaly, for my eyes it is unpleasant to see various citation styles in articles. Regards. -- Bojan  Talk  20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to revise the citations of an article, I suggest you add a ] and install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');, so you can see warning messages for errors. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought that my actions would be seen as mere cosmetical. I hoped when someone click on referece that doesn't point anywhere, he or she will add ref=harv in cite book templates and/or missing years of publication in harvnb templates. I will help in fixing articles where Harv error: link from... emerged-- Bojan  Talk  22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I suggest that you leave a note on the talk page when you edit the references so that your intentions are clear. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Turn into reference?

Hi User:Keith-264, could you tell me how you would turn this link into a reference on an article please? 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) * {{cite book |title= |last= |first= |authorlink= |year= |publisher= |location= |edition= |isbn=}} I'd fit the details into this template. Template:Cite book has more details such as |language=Italian. world cat can give you bibliographical details and will give you hyphenated isbns. Call back if you have any more questions. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Keith-264.--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Any time babe. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this right?

"In early 1915, Churchill campaigned for an amphibious assault on the Belgian coast in 1914, which was opposed by Lord Kitchener at the War Office and Sir John French commanding the British Expeditionary Force." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Winston_Churchill_in_politics:_1900%E2%80%9339#Dardanelles_Campaign )

This doesn't ring a bell. Does it with you? Is it Antwerp and Operation Hush mistakenly rolled into one, or did this actually happen? And did it involve time travel? Hengistmate (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure; there's an entry in the Third Ypres page but Churchill's involvement is more Paul Turtle's field. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OH 1917 II has him lobbying for a Flanders gig on 7 December 1914. p. 1Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, well.

"Churchill even suggested an amphibious landing at Zeebrugge." Anglo-French Relations and Strategy 0n the Western Front - W.J. Philpott.

"What Churchill had in mind was an amphibious assault on the German coast through Schleswig-Holstein, with a preliminary operation to seize the island of Borkum as a base for theses operations." The British Army and the First World War - Beckett, Bowman, Connelly.

Or an Anglo-Russian amphipious landing in the Baltic, and then on to Berlin - Churchill: An Unruly Life, Norman Rose

So something clearly went on, although the details conflict somewhat. One lives and learns. Ta. MfG Hengistmate (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Unacceptable edits

Keith, You've been around far too long to think that edits such as this, this and this are in any way acceptable. I note in particular the deliberately misleading edit summary in the initial edit, as well as your choice of an obscure article to add this material. In case you have not previously been notified, please see the below on editing restrictions concerning the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)